Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

milost, seriously...it's a year later. I get that this movie crushed your soul and all, but I feel like we should be past the point of wall of text posts saying the same stuff we were saying months ago. Brevity is your friend, there's no way I'm gonna get sucked into multi-quote battle with you at this point.

And yet that's exactly what you were doing though (minus the multi-quotes)? I left it be, I even said, what a few days ago that we were "waaaaaay past convincing each other" and you agreed?

But there you are stating, that "we've argued this before, but again, this is how I feel and that idea of being hunted and this and that and the other thing is silly to me". What should I reply to that? Or should I just not reply at all? If all we're doing is going in circles (which all of us are), then what are we still doing here?

I know how you feel, you know how I feel. I know how Shauner feels, The Joker (especially since we agree), Tequilla, Anno and all his message board personalities, etc. etc. So what are we all still doing here then? It's not like this is some battle where if we post are thoughts enough times we'll be "right" and be the victor. No, that's petty. It's just opinions on a movie that most people have moved on from. Yet here we are, "JOHN BLAKE IS GREAT, NO HE'S NOT", "TDKR SUCKS AND IS DISAPPOINTING COMPARED TO THE FIRST TWO, NO IT'S THE BEST", etc. etc.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schrute

Mr. Reese. He obviously could have said he was just lying to get attention or whatever.

Reese is another possibility for how Blake quantified his theory that Bruce Wayne is Batman. Given the ruckus Reese caused in Joker's rampage, I imagine there's documentation on him in the GPD, or some database the GPD has access to.

Edit: We go and argue in the reboot forum.

__________________
Goku Lands on Namek CEO
...no king but the King in the North whose name is BRADY...

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by justpassinby

It swings both ways: on the one hand, what drove this Batman, in this universe, to become active, was the organized crime and the effects it had on the city's crime in general; and it was established as early as in part 2 that he generally believed in "democracy" and was only willing to do what he did as long as the system was dysfunctional.
Once the bigger fish was gone, and the economy improved I guess (maybe a bit thanks to his help in the aftermath), his retirement was consistent with his character, as well as his growing frustration with the lines he had to cross in the process - only it wasn't the happy retirement he wished for in DK.

On the other hand, robberies like the Joe Chill one always happen even without three mafias running a town, without the police being always there for prevention/justice, and it wouldn't be illogical for A Batman (not necessarily the Nolan one) to keep going regardless with that as his primary motivation. And that's where the problem with your frivolous, strawman-filled comment comes in - unless you're a firm believer in the system / "no man should have so much power" principle, there's really no particular reason why you SHOULDN'T continue patrolling the streets even with a perfectly functional police at the ready.
No, it's not about beating up jaywalkers and graffiti maestros - it's about preventing assaults, batteries, murders and worse things (mayor's not talking about wallpainters in his opening speech, you know), and doing his part in this in ADDITION to the police, rather than instead of them. Also, not to hunt 1000 of them at once - just intervene as much as he could, and intimidate the rest through (you guessed it) fear... as clearly shown in TDK's opening montage.

Plus he's got no jurismydiction to worry about, and can get away with hacking apart way more poisoned trees than Dirty Harry ever could - and... he's got his superior equipment and technology that he doesn't trust the police with... as established in this very movie, TDKR... WHILE its plot is already running!
So this (new - possibly inspired by the sonar thing in addition to the bomb thing) character trait of his, not trusting the already cleaned up police force, can easily work as a counterbalance to his previous retirement aspirations.
He's sitting there in his cave... still not trusting the cops... hiding precious tools from them... that he could totally use to aid crime prevention, but instead he's sitting in his basement/attic and mopes around in clinical, self-neglecting depression.

Hey, could it be that maybe... he really gave up due to said depression, and not because he thought the naughty wall painters weren't worth the effort? Interpretation!!

And that brings us right back to the problems with this film - one of which being Bruce's retirement. However, not because "Batman would never give up, man" as that possibility had clearly been set up previously... but because it hadn't been set up previously.
Not this kind of retirement - the depressed, meaningless one, the motivations for which clearly came about way after the TDK credits rolled. The failed energy project, the war wounds that came out of ****ing nowhere. The premature retirement, accepted long before the system became good enough for Bruce to declare that the city didn't "need Batman" now.

Last movie he did talk about leaving, yes - but that's not how the movie ended; while it isn't clearly stated whether the Joker's chaos changed his attitude regarding this issue or not, the tone of that ending montage DEFINITELY spelled something totally different from "goes into sad retirement". Energetic, action packed, darkly optimistic - things still aren't fixed, streets probably need cleaning up, and the police hunting down Batman with evil dogs; and yet he'll be there, the outcast, hated by the population, but still doing what needs to be done.
Who wasn't pumped to see some of that, if not a whole delicious bunch, carried over into the sequel? But no - apparently, a few weeks later, real life intervened, as it does, that enthusiastic fever slowly wayned once Bruce returned back home, realized there was kind of nothing to do really, and depression / daily life (and then depression) took over.

Unrealistic? Certainly not. But this is me filling in the gaps that the movie shouldn't just have filled, but filled up with some good, effective "show don't tell" storytelling and character development, not just kinda thrown at the wall to make the new arc work.
Now, suddenly, Batman is old and weak, and has to "rise up" again - not from the exile so tastily set up in TDK (that one is treated very marginally thoughout the whole movie), but from this new plot device that apparently developed off-screen. Chances are he only loses to Bane for that reason, and not because this scary guy is the new big guy in town that finally proves a match to him, after long years of invincibility.

Feel the drama and excitement slowly dripping out of you yet?

It was stuff like this, along with Alfred's sudden concern for his safety (extending beyond the singular threat of Bane apparently) and reluctance to support him, resulting in their extremely poorly set-up fallout, the ending twist doing as much damage to the main plot and Bane's character as it kinda gave it all a new interesting angle, the lazy-feeling "rookie cop takes on an elite ninja's job, uplifting music" conclusion, the phoned-in, again hardly set-up not-threeway-romance and, not to forget, a whole bunch of awkward line delivery and hackneyed plot devices such as the "clean slate" that made it an inferior sequel to TDK.
Not worthy of hate by any means, very well-made in general as well as engaging and entertaining (mostly), it was just simply a disappointing, inferior sequel with some weak, alieanating story choices - probably in need of a rewrite / retool or two.

Yes, just my opinion obviously, but let's do a thought experiment here - let's imagine the movie HAD been rewritten, rectifying the rough bulk of problems I just rattled down, and making it flow naturally from TDK in really exciting ways (feel free to fill in the blanks here), and the real final version would've been released as an early draft that you could read.
Would you go "aww, what a shame they didn't stay with that one", or would you just kinda acknowledge it with a "yea, still cool, but certainly no TDKR!"? Rounding it off with a quip about how this is the devil while that was practice, maybe?

I kinda strongly feel it'd be the latter - but then again, I'm just some dude.

What makes you think he retired overnight? All we know is that Blake said, "The last CONFIRMED sighting of the Batman." The Batcave is fully rebuilt in TDKR and Alfred makes some crack about figuring he'd find Bruce down here, as in he used to spend a lot of time down there. Those extra, less public, adventures may account for his other injuries, as well.

After all, he only locked himself away from the world for three years after the fusion project failed. Who is to say that he didn't hang up the cape fully until the Dent Act took full effect, which would have been at least another 18 months after Harvey died? Interpretation can go both ways.

***

As for why this Batman retired. This Gotham not only was shot primarily in NYC, but it was made to look like the modern, post-1990s NYC. And if you've even visited that city in the last 20 years, at least the Manhattan borough (which appears to be all Gotham is in TDKR) is incredibly clean and highly policed, particularly after 9/11, which has led to the NYPD's budget becoming mind-boggling.

If Nolan's Gotham does become something akin to that, the idea of a lone avenger stalking the rooftops only works for two reasons:

A) He is somewhat psychotic, or at least narcissistic, and he does this as much, or more, for his own therapeutic reasons as it is about saving lives. In short, it plays into the negative archetype that some intellectuals view as a problem with the character: He's a rich man who is spending his millions to beat up poor people, as opposed to trying to solve the root of the problem, instead of the symptoms. In fact, I'd argue that is exactly Miller's take in The Dark Knight Returns.

or

B) It is a fantasy world where there will always be a need for a superhero. Basically the comics or, to an even more exaggerated degree, the Tim Burton films. Logic is a pesky detail to be overlooked.

But as Nolan wanted to "ground" it (throwing the word "realism" around Batman is ridiculous), he could not go with choice B. And as he wanted his Batman to be more straight forward and heroic as he is traditionally portrayed in comic books not written by Frank Miller or 1980s-era Grant Morrison, he always focused on giving his Batman a larger and more logical goal that looks at the bigger causes of crime and corruption than just the hoods on the street. He pulled from Miller's other major work, Year One, but also Loeb's stories of escalation from there and gave them a more straightforward motivation: clean up the city by setting an example and clearing house of the root problems and, presumably, investing in the city for politicians and policies he likes (Harvey Dent and apparently the mayor as well considering he is at a Wayne fundraiser in TDKR) and invest in agendas that apparently helped the city recover from its depressed economy with a newly strengthened police force on the enforcement side.

Not nearly as romantic or fantastical as the image of the lone guardian watching above his city every night of his life while on a gargoyle...but, eh it makes sense. And it allows Nolan to put this character in a world with slightly better repercussions without making him appear like a selfish rich guy playing dress up because he needs a hug.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by milost

What do we do?

I honestly don't know, but at this point I'm attempting to keep my posts concise and on point. The multi-quote thing is where I feel it gets tedious. I think we have nothing to gain at this point by getting into the minutia again.

And frankly, at the end of the day I'm the one discussing a movie I love here. I really was severely disappointed by MoS, but my activity on that board dwindled big time after the movie came out. I'm not saying you or anyone else that hates this movie should leave or anything, or that everyone should agree on this board, but it gets tiring when it's hard to find any middle ground whatsoever. I'd rather have an even more even debate were points are conceded here and there than this back and forth "YES/NO!" thing.

Anyway, to kind of move away from this for a minute, I'd like to recommend the following interviews with Nolan to you (or anyone else) if you haven't heard them already. They're a good listen if you have the free time, and they're probably the most in-depth interviews Nolan gave on each movie (he's been doing interviews with Elvis Mitchell for each of his films since Memento).

If nothing else, it's some interesting insight into his thought process on the three movies. You mentioned wanting to be a fly on the wall for them coming up with the story for TDKR, this is probably the closest thing out there (perhaps until the new featurette on the collector's edition). He's a little more open and detailed about his thought process here than he is in most other interviews about the movies.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by milost

If you're going to put emphasis on the results and outcome then what about the actual aftermath of the event? From what TDKR shows us, Gotham should want blood. ESPECIALLY the GCPD. The only glimpse of "fugitive Batman" is from a viral wanted poster promoting the film! That's it! Okay, so Batman is a "murderous thug", uhhhh, try and catch the guy? That's compelling stuff in and of itself. How is that a cop out, showing that? That's the premise Dark Knight's ending is built upon.

Um, did you miss the part the moment he made a very public appearance that the whole police force was on his arse? They even let one armed robber (Bane) go, so as to stay in full pursuit of the Batman. Just in case you missed the emphasis in that scene, they even have Foley say, "Who would you rather catch, some bank robber or the son of a ***** who killed Harvey Dent?"

Just trying to be helpful there.

Quote:

The Dark Knight's end even tells us this. It straight up says it. "You'll hunt me, condemn me", "We'll hunt him, because he can take it". We even see Gordon severing his relationship with Batman in front of ALL OF THE CITY by destroying the signal (which by the way, would show that the signal was indeed used to communicate with Batman and not "malfunctioning equipment", putting more pressure on Gordon to catch Batman).

Whose to say they didn't chase him? They just never caught him and it's been eight years. Again, people seem to assume that since we never saw Gordon reluctantly ordering investigations or Bruce Wayne use that Batcave, that nothing apparently happened between the end credits of TDK and the opening shot of TDKR. Like they all sat around for eight years shrugging.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DACrowe

Um, did you miss the part the moment he made a very public appearance that the whole police force was on his arse? They even let one armed robber (Bane) go, so as to stay in full pursuit of the Batman. Just in case you missed the emphasis in that scene, they even have Foley say, "Who would you rather catch, some bank robber or the son of a ***** who killed Harvey Dent?"

8 years after the crime isn't the same as weeks/months/a year of investigation knocking down doors to get this guy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DACrowe

Whose to say they didn't chase him? They just never caught him and it's been eight years. Again, people seem to assume that since we never saw Gordon reluctantly ordering investigations or Bruce Wayne use that Batcave, that nothing apparently happened between the end credits of TDK and the opening shot of TDKR. Like they all sat around for eight years shrugging.

That'd be all fine and dandy for a novel, a book but this is a FILM, a visual medium. SHOW me the story, don't tell me everything through forced, stilted dialogue where characters wear the theme on their sleeves and spew exposition about events that never went on. TDKR is comprised of that. "This happened a few years ago, and this, FLASHBACK and this, and this, and this, FLASHBACK".

You know how many of those The Dark Knight relied on? None. The audience doesn't need any of that, they're thrust right into the action and the story is rolling.

You know how many of those Batman Begins relied on? The first act where they're setting up and laying tracks for the ORIGIN STORY DETAILING WITH THE DEATH OF BRUCE WAYNE'S PARENTS AND THE BIRTH OF BATMAN.

If some of you guys are more interested in hearing about Blake, bones, and orphans, clean energy orbs turned bombs that we've never even seen Wayne take an interest in, Florence Italy dreams, Harvey Dent Acts, etc. instead of the whole idea of SEEING Gotham and the Police turning on Batman, watching Gordon grapple with having to hunt his friend and ally that he worked closely with and actually SEE what this lie had done to Batman's health and the toll it's taking on him, then I don't know what to say.

If there was a "Prologue" to have, it shouldn't have been "Bane on a Plane". I think the audience deserved to see a little more than a reshot scene of Gordon blabbing on and on about how "it'll be a long time before someone inspires us like HARVEY DENT did". If anything, TDKR feels like a "part 4" or a "part 5" with all the junk that's compressed in there instead of a "part 3". Then again, I'm sure most of you would claim it was "IMAX limitations" from the director who supposedly claims that story and character comes before spectacle and action.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

So when people tell you they liked this movie it's okay, but if they don't it's because of some internet forum collective bad influence?

If they can't back up their opinion,it speaks volumes.

Regarding Origins,on this forum alone,I've raised the question what makes this film so bad?No takers.

Oh,I'm sure some people have genuine reasons.

(The most popular being "The CGI claws sux!" .....yeah...but is that the biggest flaw?If so it's a minor detail at best.The other being "They ruined Deadpool!!!" yeah,and the same came be said of The Mandarin,Venom,Bane,yada,yada,yada. )

But,it's obvious that most people have formed the opinion based solely on the popular fanboy consensus.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Torch

If they can't back up their opinion,it speaks volumes.

Regarding Origins,on this forum alone,I've raised the question what makes this film so bad?No takers.

Oh,I'm sure some people have genuine reasons.

(The most popular being "The CGI claws sux!" .....yeah...but is that the biggest flaw?If so it's a minor detail at best.The other being "They ruined Deadpool!!!" yeah,and the same came be said of The Mandarin,Venom,Bane,yada,yada,yada. )

But,it's obvious that most people have formed the opinion based solely on the popular fanboy consensus.

Maybe it's just me but at least in SHH I have read plenty of fleshed out argumentation as to why they disliked the movie.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by milost

If some of you guys are more interested in hearing about Blake, bones, and orphans, clean energy orbs turned bombs that we've never even seen Wayne take an interest in, Florence Italy dreams, Harvey Dent Acts, etc. instead of the whole idea of SEEING Gotham and the Police turning on Batman, watching Gordon grapple with having to hunt his friend and ally that he worked closely with and actually SEE what this lie had done to Batman's health and the toll it's taking on him, then I don't know what to say.

If there was a "Prologue" to have, it shouldn't have been "Bane on a Plane". I think the audience deserved to see a little more than a reshot scene of Gordon blabbing on and on about how "it'll be a long time before someone inspires us like HARVEY DENT did". If anything, TDKR feels like a "part 4" or a "part 5" with all the junk that's compressed in there instead of a "part 3". Then again, I'm sure most of you would claim it was "IMAX limitations" from the director who supposedly claims that story and character comes before spectacle and action.

These set up Bruce's character as well as the payoff of Act III and the trilogy. I'll give you the Florence dream; I would have been fine telling rather than showing. The prologue sets Bane up as a strategic mastermind and draws the first of many parallels between Bruce and Bane. The eulogy also serves to tie TDKR into the overall storyarc. There's plenty of big things going on in Gotham; there's not many jobs, and those looking for work are finding it with Bane. Setting up the looting in the montage.

There was plenty of story and character in what we were given; it simply wasn't to your taste.

On the subject of the exchange between Bruce and Gordon at the climax of TDK: That would require Batman to still be active. Putting in appearances for the sake of it doesn't make sense. There were plenty of cops there when Batman and Gordon confronted Two-Face. They saw Batman roaring into the night on the batpod. There's no reason to doubt what Gordon says--given how Batman was working with the GPD at the beginning of TDK, his decision to flee speaks volumes about his alleged role in Dent's death. If there had been some more rogues popping up, Gordon could very well be forced to orchestrate a chase to maintain the lie. Instead Batman let the GPD go about their business, building off of that mass arrest Dent was able to set up earlier in TDK.

__________________
Goku Lands on Namek CEO
...no king but the King in the North whose name is BRADY...

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by milost

8 years after the crime isn't the same as weeks/months/a year of investigation knocking down doors to get this guy.

You see, that is your main problem. It isn't the movie YOU wanted him to make. It was not my idea for a third one as well. But the question is if the film Nolan made works, not whether it was the one we all predicted. The answer is yes. A resounding yes.

Quote:

That'd be all fine and dandy for a novel, a book but this is a FILM, a visual medium. SHOW me the story, don't tell me everything through forced, stilted dialogue where characters wear the theme on their sleeves and spew exposition about events that never went on. TDKR is comprised of that. "This happened a few years ago, and this, FLASHBACK and this, and this, and this, FLASHBACK".

You know how many of those The Dark Knight relied on? None. The audience doesn't need any of that, they're thrust right into the action and the story is rolling.

You mean lines like:

"I don't like you have your own division Gordon that is full of cops I investigated over at Infernal Affairs."

or

"As your enthusiastic new DA has put all my competitors out of business..."

or

"Let's wind the clocks back a year. These cops and lawyers wouldn't dare touch any of you..."

or

"Since Carmine Falcone is in Arkham, someone had to step up and run the Falcone crime syndicate..."

or

"Him Again?"/"It's the second time in six months."

It is actually full of exposition to tell us what has happened in the 12-18 months since BB , most importantly in how the mob's stance of power has changed and the rise of Harvey Dent to power as a White Knight, as well as Batman's success.

Really it is not that different rom TDKR (not counting the Pit flashbacks in the second and third acts), save that TDKR focused on a story and angle you didn't want to see as much as the fugitive story. Case and point:

Quote:

If some of you guys are more interested in hearing about Blake, bones, and orphans, clean energy orbs turned bombs that we've never even seen Wayne take an interest in, Florence Italy dreams, Harvey Dent Acts, etc. instead of the whole idea of SEEING Gotham and the Police turning on Batman, watching Gordon grapple with having to hunt his friend and ally that he worked closely with and actually SEE what this lie had done to Batman's health and the toll it's taking on him, then I don't know what to say.

It's not about what I want...it's about sending a message.

Okay, seriously, yes TDKR went in a direction I did not foresee. But this is not my story, so the question is did I like where the story went? I thought it was fantastic. I will agree that there are several stories we likely could have had seen skipped to get to this ending, but that is because Nolan wanted to escalate to what an endgame would look like and what if a villain actually "broke" Gotham. So, he told that story instead of the ones you wanted. It still works on its own as a fantastic film.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

"Send down every cop into the sewers!" - biggest Brain Fart decision in Comic Book Film history...

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlesConceptz

Im done. Im leaving this website. I promise i will not be spiderman or attempt to be. I have a ral careerr to fulfill. Please don NOT tell anyone about this. I would appreciate if you all kept this a secret.

2017 Spidey reboot ideasThe following post is my opinion so take it as you will.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedBlueWonder

"Send down every cop into the sewers!" - biggest Brain Fart decision in Comic Book Film history...

Yeah, that was bad, lol.

Bane and his underground army should have rigged explosives underneath the GPD. That way they could take out a good portion of the cops and then hunt down and kill the rest. That could have easily worked considering they had explosives underneath the football stadium and around the bridges.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Lol they filled a city full of explosives and nobody thought "Hmmmm those guys are up to something..."

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlesConceptz

Im done. Im leaving this website. I promise i will not be spiderman or attempt to be. I have a ral careerr to fulfill. Please don NOT tell anyone about this. I would appreciate if you all kept this a secret.

2017 Spidey reboot ideasThe following post is my opinion so take it as you will.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedBlueWonder

Lol they filled a city full of explosives and nobody thought "Hmmmm those guys are up to something..."

Eh, I'm willing to let that pass, considering it was "peace time" and everyone was in this state of blind passivity. But Gordon getting antsy and sending all available cops, which was nearly every single cop, into the sewers was extremely lazy.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DACrowe

You see, that is your main problem. It isn't the movie YOU wanted him to make. It was not my idea for a third one as well. But the question is if the film Nolan made works, not whether it was the one we all predicted. The answer is yes. A resounding yes.

But there is a difference and there are more complaints than, "well, it wasn't where I wanted to see it all go".

You know what people mean when they say they wanted to see Batman being hunted.

Nolan and Co. (I still love it that people think that all of these ideas are from Christopher Nolan and that it's all HIS story when it was really collaborative. I bet the same thing is said for Interstellar) made their own story and film for The Dark Knight and you don't see me and others complaining do you? The Dark Knight was the logical step after Batman Begins while still packing quite a few surprises.

TDKR is just crazy where it goes when it still wants to be a sequel to The Dark Knight, Nolan even acknowledged in interviews that he, "thinks audiences will be quite surprised/shocked to learn that our story takes place 8 years in the future with a Bruce Wayne that's frozen in time, etc. etc."

So, what if TDKR was even worse and time jumped 20 to 30 years into the future with a 70 year old Bruce, and told us all this exposition about went on during those 20 to 30 years but as a screwy, single entity, the film and it's story worked on it's own? You wouldn't have a problem with that? Sure you wouldn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DACrowe

You mean lines like:

"I don't like you have your own division Gordon that is full of cops I investigated over at Infernal Affairs."

Saw corruption in Batman Begins. Flass primarily, then what happened with Finch at the cargo docks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DACrowe

"As your enthusiastic new DA has put all my competitors out of business..."

This is the only one you get.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DACrowe

"Let's wind the clocks back a year. These cops and lawyers wouldn't dare touch any of you..."

Uhhh, Batman Begins?

Gordon was pretty much the only good cop amongst all the corruption. Nothing could really be done until Batman came into the picture. Don't you remember Falcone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DACrowe

"Since Carmine Falcone is in Arkham, someone had to step up and run the Falcone crime syndicate..."

We saw Falcone in Arkham in Batman Begins tied to a chair muttering "Scarecrow, Scarecrow".

It is actually full of exposition to tell us what has happened in the 12-18 months since BB , most importantly in how the mob's stance of power has changed and the rise of Harvey Dent to power as a White Knight, as well as Batman's success.

I think you're missing the point here. The exposition in The Dark Knight is completely different from the exposition in TDKR.

TDKR is telling us some PRETTY major plot points but not a single thing is really shown. It's heavy duty on the exposition AND establishing brand new points that the audience has never seen or heard about prior to the story.

The Dark Knight? The only exposition is there to set up Harvey Dent, everything else is really just recapping what has ALREADY been shown. Your argument doesn't work here because my problem with TDKR is that it throws all these things at the audience through dialogue alone or unnatural flashbacks that happened two films ago.

Which is more crucial, "him again" (referring to the Joker's bank heists that we actually SAW and HEARD about in Begins and in the beginning of the Dark Knight) or "I knew who you were by a look you had many years ago, at this one point of time and identified with the feeling that I have in my bones".

OR

"Since Carmine Falcone is in Arkham, someone had to step up and run the Falcone crime syndicate..." VS. Miranda Tate, Fox and Wayne mentioning the clean energy bomb that Wayne helped make that made him even more depressed in 3 years that isn't even a HINTED at in The Dark Knight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DACrowe

Really it is not that different rom TDKR (not counting the Pit flashbacks in the second and third acts), save that TDKR focused on a story and angle you didn't want to see as much as the fugitive story. Case and point:

It is all that different, I just explained why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DACrowe

It's not about what I want...it's about sending a message.

Okay, seriously, yes TDKR went in a direction I did not foresee. But this is not my story, so the question is did I like where the story went? I thought it was fantastic. I will agree that there are several stories we likely could have had seen skipped to get to this ending, but that is because Nolan wanted to escalate to what an endgame would look like and what if a villain actually "broke" Gotham. So, he told that story instead of the ones you wanted. It still works on its own as a fantastic film.

It works for you, that's the disagreement here. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for the rest of us. I don't think it works at all for me on any level, even beyond the things that I "wanted to see". Even the things that I knew would be in there, like Bruce meeting with Gordon for the first time in 8 years, the idea of the 8 year gap in general (had they kept the concept but played it up differently, I might have actually loved it), Bane vs. Batman, etc. etc. I was hopeful for but it didn't sit right with me. So it's not, "ooooooh you don't like it because it's not what you wanted". No, it's I don't like it because I don't think it's good.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Exactly, it's not like he packed up his bags and "decided" to be a recluse after that moment. He slid into a state of depression when he was rendered completely impotent in his efforts to be useful to society and save the world. In fact it has to be that he spent a significant amount of time on the energy project so it's like all that time and work ends up going to waste. Wouldn't make sense it he got so depressed after one month of work. After five years spent, it's a lot harder to be like "Alright that didn't work out, time to find another project!". That's also 5 years of having something to focus besides his own demons...once that's taken away, the demons come back in full force. Nothing about that setup got an "umm what" from people when I was watching the film.

As I've said in my long post (just for the record, not because you should've noticed that one line ), yes, it all "makes sense", and can be made to make even more sense with a proper fanfic interquel - logically, psychologically, whatever.
It just FEELS JARRING due to simply being thrown at the audience *instead* of paying off the awesome set-ups from the previous movie.

Had they shot such an interquel, his gradual slip into depression, the transition from the pumped-and-ready TDK mood to "nothing to do, well let's at least try clean energy globe, ehhh **** it all", who knows? Could've been an awesome "subversive" piece or something. But they didn't, so it feels weird and lazy.

Yes, it isn't objectively a problem if the sequel to a movie tries to be its own thing to a degree, TDK also leaves parts of BB hanging in favor of its own stuff after all (I guess it's appreciated more for "upping" the game as a result, instead of being disappointing), and I'm not saying you can't like it that way - but just explainin'

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

The 8 years just gave the story a sense of heft and history that was necessary IMO. If you pick up the events where nothing has changed in the aftermath of TDK, that to me is the real copout, because it'd be shying away from allowing the ending of TDK to have the impact that it surely deserved as one of the greatest endings to an action movie this side of Terminator 2.

Yeeaaa... bad comparison, though. T2 was a completely different kind of ending - a clear victory (over its own threat as well as the looming doom from its predecessor that had kind of been taken for granted until that point), followed by a comforting, hopeful closing statement with JUST a little bit of dark worry underneath.

TDK, on the other hand, is a much more cliffhangery one. They've saved the city's best role model and thus defied the Joker's goal, but is it really over? The mobsters are kind of gone, but only half, and that arc isn't really brought to the end. The city's still dirty, full of corruption, and while you can easily picture how it eventually evolved from that into the idyllic circumstances 8 years later... showing some of that would've been real neat
Glossing over it like that, on the other hand, is lame. Come on, the whole series had been about bringing down the mob, is casually killing two/three mob bosses really gonna be the big climax? No other replacements, no other conveniently ethnic organizations? They didn't show the Hispanic mafia, surely those must've been around as well, oh god can we cut that out??

So yea... don't show how "nothing's changed", show how it is changing! No need to pick up right after TDK either, but there's kind of a long way from that to "that story arc ended off-screen and then another began, also off-screen, thx".
You're saying it gives it more "weight"? Well, the weight of TDK's ending was how the hope for improvement had been saved, but there was still some kind of path of trials and tribulations ahead, and Batman's path had just become even more difficult (translation: exciting) - skipping over that straight to the idyllic happy ending, and transforming the "more difficult for Batman" into "more boring for Bruce" takes away that weight imo.

Quote:

That's why Terminator 3 is so bad, it just undoes the ending immediately and says "nope, doesn't matter, Judgment Day still happens".

So what? T2 "subverted" the dark ending from the first movie, now T3 subverts this one. I do think T3 was inferior, but mainly due to the smaller aspects of its execution and not because "it undid the theme from T2, man". Hey, that dark Mad Max road from T2's ending shot kind of set a dark mood, didn't it, and now "omg you can't change what's coming after all, and it's happning TODAY!".
How is that not exciting? I think they just should've done that a bit differently, focused less on the silly "fate Judgment Day" angle and more on something like "you can't stop humanity from constructing its own doom", or maybe a subversive "there's always something you overlook... should've kept on looking!", but the basic idea? Fiiiine.

Quote:

The ending of TDK was hard-earned, bittersweet "victory" of sorts, so Gotham had to get better or else the ending immediately feels cheapened and not as important as it was made out to be.

Again - what it was, was the BEGINNING of victory, at a tangible cost, not its happy conclusion and resulting boredom. The sequel kind of forgot that, though.
Whatever was about to happen in the aftermath, i.e. the continuing struggles toward the now closer victory, seemed much more exciting than "hey, everything's well now" - and apparently, *that* ended up being not as important as it felt back then

To make another hackneyed trilogy comparison... imagine, Lord of the Rings, Sam saves Frodo from the tower, the Orcs make path for them, and then, eh, the rest is easy! Next movie all is well in Middle Earth, Sauron died or what did you expect, and some new thing comes along that'll be the plot now! Meh?

Quote:

Yes, in the end the film ends up serving as a deconstruction of TDK's ending, but with the time jump it still allows TDK's ending to be an 8 year victory.

Quote:

I'm sorry you see it as a "disgusting" waste of opportunity milost, but to be honest...I was never terribly interested in a movie about Batman as a fugitive. It just seemed kind of silly to me that Batman would invite that kind of heat on himself while trying to do his job.

Well, that'd be a screw-up by TDK then, not the alternative threequel we're discussing here, wouldn't it?
Yea, people have complained about that one often enough, but then if you're one of them, why do you call it the "bestest ending ever"? If that's what you think, your thesis should be about how TDKR "rectified" that little misstep (can't undo that, but can diminish the effect of it :d) by focusing on Dent's side of the coin but giving Batman's exile as little screentime and attention as possible - not how it "gave weight" and honored that awesome ending by acknowledging its victory

Quote:

I'd feel no sympathy for him because he invited that on himself and chose to lie to Gotham for the sake of giving them a "white knight", and for what?

Um, for the peace and fruitcakes that you rave about in TDKR, perhaps?
The need to preserve Harvey's image seems pretty straightforward imo - if there's any problems with the logic, it's Batman taking the fall for him, but that's the MOVIE's misstep / artistic license with making sense, not Bruce's! Within the confines of the story, he's doing the only right thing.

Quote:

With the way TDKR is setup, I actually do feel sorry for him. Maybe some people aren't comfortable feeling sorry for Bruce like that, I don't know. But it worked for me, I was totally invested from the first moment he limps on screen.

Felt sorry for him when Rachel died, that was one well done - not so much here, as he
a) had amusing recluse mannerisms, and
b) the reason for his "sadness", even if it "makes sense", was kind of glossed over in a few lines and came out of nowhere as far as the narrative structure is concerned.
Rooting for him to go out there again? That sure, but not "feeling sorry" - couldn't relate to it, only felt alienated.

Besides, why are you saying the TDK version was supposed to make you feel "sorry"? It was supposed to make you feel pumped and excited, distressed, but definitely not "sorry". And now we got sorry

Compare Jack Bauer - each time we see him sad/retired the next season, it's after he did the job in the previous one, and then collapsed in tears. That one worked - this one less so.

___________

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Um, a lot of people who have argued that he should have been active and evading the police at the start of the movie say that.

As far as being hunted while inactive...who's to say there wasn't an investigation that led nowhere in 8 years? They don't know who Batman is, they don't have any leads, he could have fled the country by that point for all they know.

Sure there was, but it's not terribly exciting - especially when happening off-screen.

Quote:

And besides, it's not like we didn't get an EPIC chase scene with the entire GCPD pursuing Batman over other more dangerous perps, so it's not like bringing him in wasn't shown to be a priority.

We did, and it was awesome - in fact, kind of a bright spot for Batman in that movie as he kind of sucked in the rest
I wish there'd been more of "Batman is awesome and badass, but ****ing Bane, man" and less of the "he's retired and out of shape, shmeh" that ended up being the movie's central theme.

With that said, we're talking more about the "hunted in the aftermath of TDK, still doing his thing... but hunted, now, in the shadows, helping them all while being hunted by them... in the shadows", and that vibe is kind lost here - everything peaceful for 8 years, now he suddenly REappears, and that mainly because there's some kind of conspiracy against him.
We needed that hunting thing then... when the times were still hot. It doesn't matter now - cause everything's already happened

But I digress, yea it was still badass.

Quote:

milost, seriously...it's a year later. I get that this movie crushed your soul and all, but I feel like we should be past the point of wall of text posts saying the same stuff we were saying months ago. Brevity is your friend, there's no way I'm gonna get sucked into multi-quote battle with you at this point.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by milost

and showing a miserable, unlikable, hermit that wallows in his own self pity

Sorry, agreeing with most of you're saying, but I found him pretty appealing as recluse Bruce. Had that dry humor and a general "I don't care" attitude to him, I thought he was cool

Also,

Quote:

would have been better than, "Bane on a Plane"

NoooooooooooOOOOO… keep the ****ing plane intro in there, what the hell man!

Seriously, I think one of the more interesting aspects of brainstorming about an alternative script, is how to incorporate most of this version’s Bane into that different context.
Here, he comes on the scene as Bruce’s/Gordon’s repressed nightmare about their house of cards collapsing one day… more generally, everyone’s fears about the functional society they’ve been spend so much time and effort on fixing, falling apart before their eyes again, and all the horrors that would unleash on humanity... again. Here to end the borrowed time they’ve all been living on… well, there goes that awesome line I guess, but what might he be about if placed, say, a bit closer to TDK, maybe while its crime problems are still being worked on? I’ve no idea honestly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tequilla

Absolutely

The strange thing is that sentiment of cheapen's and all that when is the same exact writers of both movies. They knew exactly what they wrote and what was TDK's setup. But hey , i've read here , in this boards , that Christopher Nolan didn't understand TDK

Well... yea?
Not saying he didn't understand TDK myself, but generally, creators not understanding their own work is something that happens.
And what happens even more often is a creator releasing something awesome, and then losing their mojo in the aftermath.

Creation is a complicated process - a lot of it is done by your brain, and that not always with your full awareness; and also it's extremely easy to lose the thread in the process or after a break. **** happens, and writers aren't gods.

The funny thing is that Nolan himself was expressing doubts about the success of a third sequel, citing previous failures by other franchises, before/while working on it (not sure if he did afterwards, though), so apparently he wasn't as convinced about his everlasting infallibility as you are.
You're all individuals

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DACrowe

What makes you think he retired overnight? All we know is that Blake said, "The last CONFIRMED sighting of the Batman." The Batcave is fully rebuilt in TDKR and Alfred makes some crack about figuring he'd find Bruce down here, as in he used to spend a lot of time down there. Those extra, less public, adventures may account for his other injuries, as well.

Fine, I was just being poetic / humorous there. So real life didn't intervene that week, but over the next years... whatever. The point is that it all happened off-screen, ruining the much desired pay-off it might've been to TDK's intriguing set-up.
Basically the way TDKR is treating its predecessor there regarding Batman's retirement, it seems to be either
-that night when he drove off, he actually disappeared from the scene; he was going to be the silent guardian in the sense of looking out for possible dangers that would require his intervention, but finishing off the mobs wasn't it. And then succumbed to boredom, and oh, that fall and being shot at really messed him up. What, what did you think happened? We're not treating this as a surprise or anything. Or:
-so something went on for a while, more injuries etc. (apparently graver than those he suffered while dealing with the main stuff, but whatever) but it kinda wayned (I'm so sorry) afterwards, so there - rest see above.

The rebuilt batcave and the injuries, as I admittedly hadn't really considered, kind of do suggest the latter, even though they don't prove it (might've built it just in case, or because it was a good place to put all that cool equipment in) - but again, in that case see above: it doesn't show any of that, which makes it feel jarring and lazy, and that's the real problem here.

Quote:

the Dent Act took full effect

Yea, about that one... what was it all about again?
Like, criminals made appeals to corrupt officials, and then got released, and now not any more? Wish they would've done more with that than just a few lines, one of them spoken by a horribly out-of-character Blake

Quote:

As for why this Batman retired. This Gotham not only was shot primarily in NYC, but it was made to look like the modern, post-1990s NYC. And if you've even visited that city in the last 20 years, at least the Manhattan borough (which appears to be all Gotham is in TDKR) is incredibly clean and highly policed, particularly after 9/11, which has led to the NYPD's budget becoming mind-boggling.

If Nolan's Gotham does become something akin to that,

Or maybe it just looks clean (as it did in TDK, btw, for the most part) to show how peaceful it is now?
In that case Batman might be a bit more useful in catching the odd thug that slipped through the cracks - and that without taking into account all the cool stuff he's got that the cops don't cause he doesn't wanna share, as that kind of would make him useful even with the whole tightly policed thing in place

But regardless, even if what you're saying is right, I already kinda agreed that it did make sense for Batman to retire in the face of low crime / lack of corruption and mafias, didn't I.

Not leave no other choice for any aspiring vigilante, but simply made sense for this Bruce Wayne to hang up his hat, cause that's what he'd always wanted and was about.

Quote:

the idea of a lone avenger stalking the rooftops only works for two reasons:

A) He is somewhat psychotic, or at least narcissistic, and he does this as much, or more, for his own therapeutic reasons as it is about saving lives. In short, it plays into the negative archetype that some intellectuals view as a problem with the character: He's a rich man who is spending his millions to beat up poor people, as opposed to trying to solve the root of the problem, instead of the symptoms. In fact, I'd argue that is exactly Miller's take in The Dark Knight Returns.

Not sure if I agree with the bleeding-heart attitude of that (serious criminals, i.e. those assaulting and victimizing innocents, are still primarily evil and not just "poor", even if the poverty was a factor in bringing out their monsters), especially seeing as how vigilantes are often about meting out justice instead of appeasing the bad guys with comfort and money - but yea, this Batman certainly had abandoned his more vengeful urges by the time he took up the cape, in favor of working at the factors that drove society into its bad state; in that case, the mob.
Again - makes sense for him to retire given the situation at the beginning of TDKR... just not for TDKR to begin at the situation it's in at its beginning

Quote:

B) It is a fantasy world where there will always be a need for a superhero. Basically the comics or, to an even more exaggerated degree, the Tim Burton films. Logic is a pesky detail to be overlooked.

But as Nolan wanted to "ground" it (throwing the word "realism" around Batman is ridiculous), he could not go with choice B.

Well, as explained above, he totally could, but this one was consistent with the character that had been set up all this way, yes.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by milost

But there is a difference and there are more complaints than, "well, it wasn't where I wanted to see it all go".

You know what people mean when they say they wanted to see Batman being hunted.

Yes, it means they wanted a certain type of plot for Batman 3. Nolan gave them another. And they whine incessantly for over a year about it.

Quote:

So, what if TDKR was even worse and time jumped 20 to 30 years into the future with a 70 year old Bruce, and told us all this exposition about went on during those 20 to 30 years but as a screwy, single entity, the film and it's story worked on it's own? You wouldn't have a problem with that? Sure you wouldn't.

Well thank God it didn't, straw man friend. But I must confess, I prefer a good film first over what's in the comics. If Nolan wanted to tell a story about an elderly Batman, I'd be interested if it makes for a good movie. WB after box office and teenage fans on the other hand...

Quote:

Saw corruption in Batman Begins. Flass primarily, then what happened with Finch at the cargo docks

Okay, I'll make this simple. These are ALL character or story developments that occur between BB and TDK without being shown onscreen. Therefore we get exposition.

Case in point: Where was Harvey Dent investigating crooked cops in BB? **** where were Wuretz and Martinez? What they weren't there? Then, I guess this is exposition to explain who Harvey Dent is and what has been going on inside the GCPD that could cause friction between Dent and the cops, not to mention explain why Gordon has his own division and for that matter HIS OWN BUILDING. None of which were in BB. Huh.

Quote:

Uhhh, Batman Begins?

Gordon was pretty much the only good cop amongst all the corruption. Nothing could really be done until Batman came into the picture. Don't you remember Falcone?

Oh really, so where was Dent cleaning up the city and where was Gordon arresting mafiosos. It is a development never actually shown over the initial arrest of Falcone in BB, but apparently it's gotten so bad in the past 12-18 months that the mafia is having their meetings in broad daylight. It is a development that shows a major shift in power between law enforcement and organized crime that took place OFFSCREEN between BB and TDK.

Quote:

We saw Falcone in Arkham in Batman Begins tied to a chair muttering "Scarecrow, Scarecrow".

And where was Maroni, Gambol and the Chechen? The line is in relation to Maroni running the mafia and controlling organized crime in Gotham. Yet, his claim of power, and his entire visage, is absent in BB. Ergo, there is ANOTHER development that occurred between the two films that was explained away the dreaded expository dialogue that you so despise.

Try again. It's been 12-18 months between BB and TDK. The last Joker crime was six months prior. That means, wait for it, the Joker has been up to no good crime offscreen between movies! I cannot believe Nolan would do that. Talk about not living up to the promise of the original film's ending.

Quote:

I think you're missing the point here. The exposition in The Dark Knight is completely different from the exposition in TDKR.

Because you like one and dislike the other.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DACrowe

Yes, it means they wanted a certain type of plot for Batman 3. Nolan gave them another. And they whine incessantly for over a year about it.

The thing though is that it also happens to be the "type of plot" SET UP BY THE ACTUAL MOVIE
So what you really mean is that they wanted the sequel to give some pay-offs, instead of "deconstructing" that expectation in some weird way, and that's not quite the same thing is it

Quote:

Well thank God it didn't, straw man friend. But I must confess, I prefer a good film first over what's in the comics. If Nolan wanted to tell a story about an elderly Batman, I'd be interested if it makes for a good movie. WB after box office and teenage fans on the other hand...

Fair enough, but when a movie is a part of a continuous series, there's always two valid angles to consider - how it holds up on its own, and how it holds up as a follow-up.
Would you say just dropping clear, intriguing set-ups from a previous movie and doing something else entirely is a completely alright, flawless way of making a good "follow-up"?

Same, of course, applies to segments within a single movie, to a lesser degree - what if both halves are good, but the second just totally ****s on the first one? Nothing, just what it is - second half is good, but ****s on the first one. Then you review the movie as a whole, and, well.

Quote:

Okay, I'll make this simple. These are ALL character or story developments that occur between BB and TDK without being shown onscreen. Therefore we get exposition.

Case in point: Where was Harvey Dent investigating crooked cops in BB? **** where were Wuretz and Martinez? What they weren't there? Then, I guess this is exposition to explain who Harvey Dent is and what has been going on inside the GCPD that could cause friction between Dent and the cops, not to mention explain why Gordon has his own division and for that matter HIS OWN BUILDING. None of which were in BB. Huh.

You're clearly grasping at straws here - he already conceded that Harvey *is* a bit of a case of that, which we'll come to in a moment, but everything else that doesn't revolve around him?
Corrupt cops - already there, now it's just different ones, occupying the same role essentially. Yes, there's an element of ambiguity to them now, Dent calling them "scum" all the time but then happily getting in the car with one of them without having warned Rachel, as well, and the rest being all surprised and flabbergasted by their betrayal... things could be used to explain it away, sure, but really I think that's an actual plot hole. But it's not the problem you pointed out - and as far as yours is concerned, they're really just corrupt cops under suspicion

His own building... come on, man.

Quote:

Oh really, so where was Dent cleaning up the city and where was Gordon arresting mafiosos. It is a development never actually shown over the initial arrest of Falcone in BB, but apparently it's gotten so bad in the past 12-18 months that the mafia is having their meetings in broad daylight. It is a development that shows a major shift in power between law enforcement and organized crime that took place OFFSCREEN between BB and TDK.

When you wanna compare the two cases, DEGREES is all it comes down to, really.
What happens in the meantime there, naturally and logically flows from the events of BB - Batman comes on the scene, proves a menace for the mobsters, begins to "apply pressure" on questionable officials, and eventually gets the big dog arrested in a dramatic, demonstrative fashion. Yes... since it then quickly gets sidetracked with the bomb plot one could say it could've flshed out that development much better were it not for that, but the necessary pieces have still already been placed - what happens from there on is just more of the same.
Batman keeps intimidating mobsters... finding embarassing sex photos of fat judges... protecting targets from hitmen... more arrests are made, confidence in population and state officials increases, cue opening montage with optimistic music, two criminals scared to go through with the job, and a few lines confirming the progress that has been made since then.

Is it a flaw? Maybe - but not as serious as yours. Because you see the thing is, had TDKR picked off at a comparable spot in relation to TDK as TDK did to BB, maybe some time later, with expected but already advanced developments, keeping that same overall vibe, would any of these complaints exist? NO - they exist because in that case, the plotlines from TDK end, everything becomes peaceful and boring, and against this background completely new things like the clean energy thing start developing; Batman/Bruce has long completed his unspecified journey from active to recluse, and two entirely new characters get introduced in ways that are either kind of rushed, or really, really questionable (looking at you there, Johnnyboy).

Now I don't really have too much of a problem with Talia - but still, she's just there, Bruce trusts her, and it's never explained. Maybe befriended each other over similar causes? You're an activist and then meet a hot enthusiastic activist sharing your goals - bestest philanthrophy ever? Alas, all just left over to wild speculation.
Blake gets introduced decently as well, but then the less said about his ACTUAL introduction the better.
None of that applies to Harvey who, while his coin throwing habit, convenient nickname and somewhat murky backstories at the IA might seem somewhat artificial - he still gets the much needed solid introduction / inclusion into the theme that those other two lack, and when the foundation is good, lots of things are good.

Degrees - TDK wins.

Quote:

And where was Maroni, Gambol and the Chechen? The line is in relation to Maroni running the mafia and controlling organized crime in Gotham. Yet, his claim of power, and his entire visage, is absent in BB. Ergo, there is ANOTHER development that occurred between the two films that was explained away the dreaded expository dialogue that you so despise.

So a boss got replaced (the shock), and two other mob organizations that run things (maybe centered in some other districts) apparently have been there all along, too. Big deal - they're just more of the same, not characters playing entirely new roles.
Why is Maroni absent in BB? Cause he wasn't boss. Mafia families may spread over multiple cities, maybe he was running something less important elsewhere even. All completely plausible, and not even that interesting. Yea, he was made up for the sequel, but that "new invention" isn't jarring for the named reasons.
Look at it this way - none of us complains about the cool congressman

Quote:

Try again. It's been 12-18 months between BB and TDK. The last Joker crime was six months prior. That means, wait for it, the Joker has been up to no good crime offscreen between movies! I cannot believe Nolan would do that. Talk about not living up to the promise of the original film's ending.

Whaaaa-a-a-a-t.
Yea, so he had a hit one time, and then a couple others - couldn't be caught, now things start getting hot and the movie kicks in.
Again, I repeat - MORE OF THE SAME HAPPENS BETWEEN THE TWO MOVIES. In the other case, THINGS MORPH BEYOND RECOGNIZEABILITY, old stuff dropped new stuff thrown in. Difference, anywhere? Just a little one maybe... NO.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

So your main issue with the 8-year gap in TDKR is that it leads to more exposition? Every fantasy/sci-fi/comicbook movie contains a lot of exposition and usually that's not a problem at all. Hell, Inception has loads of exposition in almost every scene and it still manages to be a great movie.

Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolishTank

So your main issue with the 8-year gap in TDKR is that it leads to more exposition? Every fantasy/sci-fi/comicbook movie contains a lot of exposition and usually that's not a problem at all. Hell, Inception has loads of exposition in almost every scene and it still manages to be a great movie.